The Problem with Christians

[AAA]

If all sequences of 10 are acceptable, then the chance of getting an acceptable sequence is 100%. If only a few sequences are acceptable (as is the case with proteins) then the chance of getting an acceptable sequence is low.

So let's tweak a few variables. Let's say that only one sequence of ten cards is acceptable, and let's give us several million years to draw it. Let's also say that, in every draw, if you get a card in a workable position on the sequence you get to keep it there, even if the other nine cards are out of sequence, and bring it through to the next drawing.

Now you've got something closer to the natural selection process. What do you think the chances are of getting the right sequence in millions of years now?

Yeah, but natural selection applies to replicating systems, which is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a protein forming, not a gene developing as an organism reproduces. So you don't get to keep the functional card, because without all the functional cards you have no replication and no selection.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh boy, more making and simultaneously breaking of rules and inferences....this is bound to be productive and reasonable. 

Look, if you aren't going to stick with something, save yourself the trouble of bringing it up. At least then you won't have to tie yourself into a knot to get around it later.

[LadyForCamus]

So let's tweak a few variables. Let's say that only one sequence of ten cards is acceptable, and let's give us several million years to draw it. Let's also say that, in every draw, if you get a card in a workable position on the sequence you get to keep it there, even if the other nine cards are out of sequence, and bring it through to the next drawing.

Now you've got something closer to the natural selection process. What do you think the chances are of getting the right sequence in millions of years now?

Yeah, but natural selection applies to replicating systems, which is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a protein forming, not a gene developing as an organism reproduces. So you don't get to keep the functional card, because without all the functional cards you have no replication and no selection.

You are talking about magical gods, lol.  You don't get to demand evidence for evolution while simultaneously shirking the responsibility of providing evidence for the supernatural.

[AAA]

We all know you do have beliefs about it. Non designed life would be much simpler. We could calculate the formation of its structures without arriving at unbelievably improbable numbers. It wouldn't depend on information. Life probably wouldn't have developed into slowly reproducing organisms like elephants and other large mammals, because the most fit organism from an evolutionary point of view is that which is able to produce the most viable offspring. Microbes excel at this, and I would expect life to never amount to much more than that. I wouldn't expect it to be dependent on protein machines.

My beliefs are irrelevant. You are making claims, not me.

So you've just described non-designed life, after saying it would be impossible to describe.

How do you know any of this, that you've just described? Your criteria is how simple it is? If I give you a life form, what exactly will you do with it to determine if it was designed or not? You'll do a probability calculation and announce it is designed if your number falls below...an arbitrary value?

If I had a fool proof way to distinguish between designed and non-designed, I would be a nobel prize winning biologist. You are asking the impossible. It would be like me saying: describe in detail the events of the formation of the universe. If you can't do it, then you cannot continue to discuss scientific arguments as you are arguing from ignorance. That would not be fair. You can't ask me to answer one of the greatest questions of all time and then ridicule me when I don't give the answer you think to be correct.

[The Grand Nudger]

If I had a fool proof way to distinguish between designed and non-designed, I would be a nobel prize winning biologist. You are asking the impossible. 

If it's impossible, than how, precisely, have you managed to do so? If you haven't or can't do so, then how, precisely, do you hope to establish the veracity of your comments in that regard? You're being ridiculed because you can't give an answer at all...by reference to your own claims, and yet you do......

[AAA]

Yeah, but natural selection applies to replicating systems, which is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a protein forming, not a gene developing as an organism reproduces. So you don't get to keep the functional card, because without all the functional cards you have no replication and no selection.

You are talking about magical gods, lol.  You don't get to demand evidence for evolution while simultaneously shirking the responsibility of providing evidence for the supernatural.

I literally didn't do any of the three things you mentioned.

[AJW333]

Ya know...the last 3 or so pages of this thread is just you, AJW, special pleading.  Why are we even entertaining the world's most drawn out logical fucking fallacy?  It's ridiculous.  Sorry, but you don't get to say, "you guys have to follow ALL these scientific rules!  But my God doesn't because he's immune to all the rules!"   Logical fallacy.  Mind-set of a 4 year old.  My imaginary friend gets to do whatever he wants.  

Look at it this way, if there was an all powerful God that did create the universe and was responsible for designing and creating life, then you would be wrong wouldn't you? All of the so-called proof of evolution would be rendered false and meaningless whilst my "faith of a 4 year old" would prove to have been the better choice.  If I am wrong and there is no God, what have I lost? Nothing really, unless you can show me that the life of an atheist is far better than the life of a Christian.

[AAA]

If I had a fool proof way to distinguish between designed and non-designed, I would be a nobel prize winning biologist. You are asking the impossible. 

If it's impossible, than how, precisely, have you managed to do so?  If you haven't or can't do so, then how, precisely, do you hope to establish the veracity of your comments in that regard?  You're being ridiculed because you can't give an answer at all...by reference to your own claims, and yet you do......

What would designed life look like then? Apparently this is a fair question. Remember, If you can't answer you lose

[Cyberman]

I seriously want to shoot Blaise Pascal through the testicles.

[LadyForCamus]

Ya know...the last 3 or so pages of this thread is just you, AJW, special pleading.  Why are we even entertaining the world's most drawn out logical fucking fallacy?  It's ridiculous.  Sorry, but you don't get to say, "you guys have to follow ALL these scientific rules!  But my God doesn't because he's immune to all the rules!"   Logical fallacy.  Mind-set of a 4 year old.  My imaginary friend gets to do whatever he wants.  

Look at it this way, if there was an all powerful God that did create the universe and was responsible for designing and creating life, then you would be wrong wouldn't you? All of the so-called proof of evolution would be rendered false and meaningless whilst my "faith of a 4 year old" would prove to have been the better choice.  If I am wrong and there is no God, what have I lost? Nothing really, unless you can show me that the life of an atheist is far better than the life of a Christian.

Oh, no! Pascal's Wager? Have we devolved into this now?